United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made national news at UF Law last month when he dismissed U.S. News & World Report rankings and stated that a law degree from an Ivy League school shouldn’t carry more weight than any other law degree. While those remarks garnered the most attention in the press, they were just a small portion of Thomas’ overall message, which emphasized the importance of positivity and hard work.

This was Thomas’ second visit to UF Law to give the Marshall M. Criser Distinguished Lecture in Law – having previously participated in the second annual Criser Lecture in 2010. Like his prior visit, this lecture was structured as a “conversation” with UF Law students. Lauren Humphries (1L), David R. Maass (3L), Eric Netcher (3L) and Zack Smith (3L) shared the stage with Thomas in the Marcia Whitney Schott Courtyard at UF Law on Friday, Sept. 21, passing a microphone amongst the group as they asked questions of the Supreme Court justice.

Smith, who is editor-in-chief of the Florida Law Review said he was interested in speaking with Thomas because “it seemed like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to sit down with a sitting United States Supreme Court justice and ask him questions on any topic about which I was curious.”

Smith said he and the other students met Thomas briefly before the lecture and, along with about 20 other law students, had lunch with him afterward.

“Justice Thomas was very personable in these settings and was genuinely interested in talking to students and answering our questions,” he said. “I was impressed with his ability to recall everyone’s names and with the fact that he made a point to speak to everyone in the room.”

During the lecture, while Thomas touched on some legal topics, the justice’s stories generally proved to be a formidable mixture of lighthearted humor and solid advice for law students, including insights into how his experiences growing up in the segregated South helped shape his worldview as an adult and a look back at the difficulties Thomas had in law school.

“I found law school to be as clear as cement,” Thomas said in his opening remarks. “It was a very, very difficult experience.”

He said that the law does eventually reach a point of clarity, but for him it wasn’t until years after he had earned his J.D.

“It’s one of the reasons I’ve asked during my visits to spend more time with students,” Thomas said, “to reassure students in many ways that (the law) isn’t always unclear; that it may be difficult and complex but at some point the clouds open and you begin to see things a little better. Maybe it’s experience, maybe it’s maturity. Maybe it’s just life.”

Thomas – who graduated from Yale Law School – discussed how the most important mentors he’s had in his life weren’t the ones with the most formal education, but rather it was his family growing up, and the people he surrounds himself with every day.

“I don’t know if you saw the movie ‘The Help,’ but that’s basically where I grew up,” he said. “That’s my family, that’s my neighborhood, those are the people who were the wisest people, they were good people … those people are wise because they’ve managed to get through life in a good way.”

Those were the people who instilled in him a sense of hope and positivity, Thomas said, and it wasn’t until he was surrounded by the more privileged and elite in New England that he was exposed to a sense of cynicism and negativity.

But that cynicism latched onto him and he carried it with him for a long time. When asked about advice for graduating law students, Thomas again said to stay positive.

“I can’t tell you to use my experience because I was decidedly negative when I got out of law school and quite bitter and even quite cynical – that’s why I try to counsel young people not to go there, it took a long time to overcome that,” Thomas said.

Smith said one of the most salient points he took away from the conversation with Thomas was that, “America is still a land of opportunity.”

A memorable moment in the lecture came in response to a question about law school rankings and how attitudes toward the law school hierarchy can impact the legal profession.

Thomas said he has never paid attention to law school rankings and doesn’t think which law school someone graduated from should figure into hiring for a clerkship or job.

“There are smart kids everywhere,” he said, “they’re male, they’re female, they’re black, they’re white, they’re from the West, they’re from the South, they’re from public schools, they’re from public universities, they’re from poor families, they’re from sharecroppers, they’re from all over.”

He said that while he doesn’t rule out having Ivy Leaguers clerk for him, he intentionally seeks out those who aren’t from the nation’s most elite schools.

Automatically excluding someone from consideration for a position based on the school they went to is the antithesis of what the United States is about, Thomas said.

Thomas did breach more legal-oriented topics as well, emphasizing the importance of a practical approach to the law. Thomas also touched on his appreciation for his position as the circuit justice for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which includes Georgia, Florida and Alabama. He said although he lives in Washington, D.C., he considers the South his home and every time he thinks about being a part of the 11th Circuit he has to pinch himself.

“To know that within my lifetime – I went to segregated schools – to know that I’m part of the circuit that interprets the laws, that’s a big deal to me,” he said.

Thomas recommended that students take practical courses. He suggested that scholarly work would be cited by the high court more often if they were to focus on the practical application of the law:

“Justice Thomas emphasized that students should take practical courses and that professors should write articles on practical topics,” Smith said, “which can assist the practicing bar in arguing cases, and judges in deciding those cases.”

And he said that Supreme Court opinions should be accessible to the average person.

“Without condescension, we are obligated to make what we say about the Constitution and (the people’s) laws accessible to them,” Thomas said.

The Marshall M. Criser Distinguished Lecture Series was created in early 2007 by Lewis Schott (B.A. 1943, LL.B. 1946) of Palm Beach, Fla., as a tribute to his fellow UF Law alumnus, former UF President Marshall Criser (JD 51). The goal of the speaker series is to host prestigious national and international speakers every year on topics of particular interest to law students. Past speakers have included Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (ret.), Justice Clarence Thomas and former ABA President Stephen Zack (JD 71).

Stories about the lecture have run in hundreds of media outlets nationwide. A webcast of the Criser Lecture is available here.

]]>http://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/2012/10/justice-thomas-there-are-smart-kids-everywhere/feed/0A conversation with Associate Justice Clarence Thomas; Marshall Criser Distinguished Lecture Serieshttp://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/2010/01/a-conversation-with-associate-justice-clarence-thomas-marshall-criser-distinguished-lecture-series/
http://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/2010/01/a-conversation-with-associate-justice-clarence-thomas-marshall-criser-distinguished-lecture-series/#commentsMon, 25 Jan 2010 16:27:57 +0000http://www.law.ufl.edu/wpflalaw/?p=3441U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas will visit the Levin College of Law on Wednesday and Thursday, Feb. 3-4. The focus of his visit will be interacting with and meeting students, including a “conversation” as the Marshall Criser Distinguished Lecture. This conversation, which is not open to the general public, will be held on Thursday, Feb. 4, at 10 a.m. in the Marcia Whitney Schott Courtyard.

The lecture will also be Webcast live via a link on the UF Law home page, and an archived version will be available online following the event.

Tickets for the lecture are being distributed on a first-come, first-served basis by the Office of Student Affairs until all 700 have been picked up. In order to be eligible for a ticket, students need to present to the Office of Student Affairs a valid law school UF ID. Only one ticket will be available per student and students are not allowed to pick up tickets for other students. Please pick a ticket up only if you plan on attending the event.

Details about the lecture and other events related to Justice Thomas’ visit were sent to the law school community in an e-mail last week. Students with questions should contact the Office of Student Affairs at 352-273-0620. Any other questions, including media inquiries, should be directed to the Communications Office at 352-273-0650.

For the most up-to-date information on ticketing, policies and procedures check your e-mail and the UF Law homepage.

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens paid a visit to the UF campus for a special conversation with students, faculty, alumni and friends. He discussed issues ranging from how politics affects the court, to how he hopes to be remembered. (UF Law/ Chen Wang)

Justice John Paul Stevens and Judge Jose A. Gonzalez Jr. devoted part of their joint presentation on the UF Campus on Nov. 17 to offering free advice to law students.

Stevens, the most senior United States Supreme Court Justice, said lawyers often overlook oral arguments in their cases.

“I think it’s a mistake many people make to assume they’re not important, because oral arguments are very important,” Stevens said. “There are many, many cases where you … hear oral arguments and are sometimes persuaded again… There are many cases which the result has been changed by the oral advocacy that we get.”

Oral arguments are one of the most underrated parts of advocacy, agreed Gonzalez (UF JD 57), who is a U.S. District Court Judge in the Southern District of Florida.

Gonzalez remembers waiting to argue one of his cases when he saw another lawyer make a dynamic oral argument in which the lawyer spoke about the people rather than the law.

“I can remember that argument as if it was given five minutes ago,” Gonzalez said. “I thought, ‘I don’t know what’s going to happen in this case, but if he doesn’t win, it’s an injustice.’ I hadn’t read the briefs; I didn’t know the law.”

Stevens also remembered some great oral advocates, including Thurgood Marshall, who was later appointed to the Supreme Court, and the current Chief Justice of the United States, John. G. Roberts Jr., who argued many cases before the Court before joining it.

The two old friends were on campus as part of the inaugural Marshall M. Criser Distinguished Lecture at the University of Florida Phillips Center for the Performing Arts. The pair met about 25 years ago, Gonzalez said.

Gonzalez stressed that judicial salaries have become a big problem in attracting top lawyers away from private practice. Gonzalez said he makes less money than he did 30 years ago accounting for inflation.

Congress recently gave a cost-of-living adjustment to all federal employees and all members of Congress, Gonzalez said, leaving only federal judges out.

“We’re spending billions of dollars for the war in Iraq, and we can’t afford to compensate a handful of federal judges. That’s just crazy. We need to rearrange our priorities and put the money where it is going to produce long-term benefits: one is getting the best people on the bench and the other is to adequately fund the education system,” Gonzalez said to a loud applause.

Stevens and Gonzalez took questions from Professor Sharon Rush, Professor Michael Wolf and Florida Law Review Editor in Chief Larry Dougherty. They asked a wide variety of questions, many of which were highly relevant to law students.

“Don’t you think the opinions are getting excessively long these days?” Gonzalez asked Stevens.

“Yes, I am probably responsible for some of that,” Stevens responded.

Judge Jose A. Gonzalez Jr. (JD 57) joined Justice Stevens in a conversation on current legal issues in front of students, faculty, alumni and friends of the UF College of Law. (UF Law/ Chen Wang)

The two also disagreed on the use of footnotes in cases. Gonzalez said the model Supreme Court case was footnote-free, while Stevens is a big proponent of them.

“I think the footnote is optional reading,” Stevens said. “You don’t have to read the footnote, but sometimes it may be good to spell out in more detail something that is really important that you’re thinking that doesn’t necessarily fit into the rationale.”

Dougherty jokingly replied, “Justice Stevens, some of our professors here have us under the impression that footnotes are required reading.”

Rush smiled and assured students that they are still required reading.

Wolf asked about the doctrine of stare decisis, which says courts should let precedent stand. Stevens said he gives strong deference to precedence, even if he disagrees with the decision, as in Texas v. Johnson, a 1989 case which protected flag burning as a form of free speech.

“I think very strongly that that case was incorrectly decided for all sorts of reasons that I won’t go on to waste your time with,” Stevens said. “But I would never suggest that it should be overruled. I think it was a firm decision, I think the country has accepted it, and I think it is part of the law and should remain the law.”

When Stevens and Gonzalez were asked for general advice for law students, Gonzalez was quick with a joke.

“Whatever you do, don’t sue people who don’t have any money, because there’s no future in it,” he said.

On a more serious note, Gonzalez advised students to always ask for help when needed.

“When you first get into the practice, you’re going to find out that you don’t know an awful lot,” he said. “Don’t be afraid to admit that there is something you don’t know. Go ask somebody older than you or more experienced than you, and you’ll be surprised how happy they will be to help you out.”

Stevens said to always keep your word most importantly.

“When you graduate, you become part of a profession, and one of the most important assets that you will have if you’re going to be a good lawyer is your word,” Stevens said. “If your word is good and you have the reputation for being trusted for what you say and your understanding of the law, that will pay more dividends than you can possibly imagine.”